Sort of, but not exactly. Moral behaviors have an effect on others, but the behaviors are reflective of the individual, and his/her integrity. The behaviors are standards to adhere to, in order to prevent harming someone else. Moral standards are universal, and not dependent on one's station in life. Examples of ethical behaviors would be honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, and similar characteristics which can be attributed to anyone who is capable of thought and action.
Now I don't mean to sound snide, but what if being honest would result in harm? (Warning, lame hypothetical incoming) If a former employee breaks into my job holding a gun screaming he wants to kill my boss and my boss is hiding under my desk. If the enraged former employee asks me if I know where my boss is, I would lie, I would be dishonest. Now you may respond that all I had to do was use common sense or intuition and I could of solved the problem, but there are many less extreme situations that aren't that clear cut. Furthermore, there are many people that don't, or cannot make the distinction about when it's ok to be dishonest.
I guess my point is, that you based morals upon acts or words out of context. It's possible to be all the things you've defined and it result in harm.
If I based morals upon the belief that people can objectively suffer (or flourish) then judging an action would be based, at it's root, upon the outcome of that action and could be judged solely upon the result in a given context if we know that moral actions are those that result in the prevention of suffering, or the happiness and/ or well-being of another person. The only variable would be the amount of information a person has.
In other words, if I pursued a course of action that I
believed would be helpful and it ended up causing harm. What was missing was information. Cutting off another persons hand would be immoral, unless it was to save his life. But what if I cut it off thinking it would save his life only to find out later on that I didn't have to cut it off? Assuming that there was no reasonable exaction that I should known better, then strictly speaking the act could be considered morally neutral. Or you could even say it was immoral, but the intention was "good" thus the consequence would be less severe or non existent.
I think we can agree that killing is immoral, but what if I was in the position to save 10 people from certain death, by simply pressing a button, but if I did press it I knew that 1 person somewhere else would die? These kinds of decision require a kind of moral calculus because a set list of ideas and principles aren't enough, imo to deal with the nearly infinite circumstances that could arise.
I think defining morality on words or concepts that can be interpreted allows people to justify bad outcomes on literal interpretation. It would seem at the root of it all, we should all agree that as people we want to be happy and healthy and we want to avoid suffering and pain. Since we know that others experience the same things we do, then we should offer to extend these ideas to others with the expectation that they will return the favor.